Full Hearing – Kirsten Macneil

Definitions

Any reference in this decision to:

• ‘GTC Scotland’ means the General Teaching Council for Scotland;
• the ‘Panel’ means the Fitness to Teach Panel considering the case;
• the ‘Rules’ (and any related expression) means the GTCS Fitness to Teach Rules 2017 or refers to a provision (or provisions) within them; and
• the ‘Register’ means the GTCS register of teachers.

Preliminary issues

Anonymity

The Panel decided as regards anonymity that it was fair and appropriate to anonymise Pupil A and Pupil B, Parent A and Colleague A.  The Panel decided that in terms of Rule 1.7.3 it was in the interests of justice that Parent A be anonymised to avoid jigsaw identification of the pupils. Further, issues arise as to possible prejudice to Colleague A given that she is currently subject to fitness to teach proceedings and, in these circumstances, the Panel decided that it was fair for Colleague A to be anonymised.

Late Papers

On Day 1, the Panel heard from the parties who were in agreement that late papers for the Teacher should be received, being a summary of the school inspection report dated 17 September 2019. The Panel took advice from the Legal Assessor as to relevance, fairness and the interests of justice and decided that it was fair and appropriate to allow papers to be received, although late.  Neither party objected to late receipt.

The Teacher’s Representative also sought to receive an email sent to the Teacher from the Education department dated 13 March 2019. He said this was the document that related to the decision of the Teacher to involve a Primary Mental Health Worker (PMHW)and was therefore relevant. The Presenting Officer had no objection. The Panel heard and accepted legal advice and agreed that the evidence was fair and relevant and that it should be admitted.

Following the conclusion of the Presenting Officer’s case, the Teacher’s Representative sought to have further papers received as late. These consisted of CPDs, development plans, an up-to-date mentor meeting notes, and various testimonials. The Presenting Officer had no objection.   The Panel heard and accepted legal advice and agreed that the evidence was fair and relevant and that it should be admitted.

Allegations

The following allegations were considered at the hearing:

1. Between August 2016 and September 2019, whilst employed as Headteacher by Highland Council at Gledfield Primary School, the Teacher did:

(a) Between August 2016 and December 2017 fail to act upon multiple child protection concerns which were shared with the Teacher by professional colleagues, namely Colleague C and Colleague D, in respect of Colleague A’s treatment of children in her class including:

(i) Colleague A shouting at pupils in an aggressive and intimidating manner and causing them distress and humiliation;

(ii) Colleague A bullying and intimidating a pupil by refusing to allow him out on break and lunch and keeping him back at the end of the school day without communicating this to his parents;

(iii) Colleague A regularly preventing pupils going out on break and deliberately making them late for lunch or gym;

(iv) Colleague A grabbing a boy by his arm;

(b) Fail to inform parents regarding incidents of physical abuse allegedly committed by Pupil B against their children.

(c) Fail to complete a Child’s Plan in respect of Pupil A in a timeous manner, thus unnecessarily delaying the input of appropriate assistance for Pupil A.

(d) Fail to share details of physical and mental abuse suffered by Pupil A with appropriate mental health professionals who were assessing Pupil A.

(e) Ask a probationary member of staff, namely Colleague B, to fabricate that she had been subject to class observations by another teacher when the Teacher knew said observations had not taken place.

(f) In or around June 2019 fail to ensure that Colleague B’s final report for GTC Scotland was signed timeously, thus resulting in a loss of earnings for Colleague B.

(g) Ask a member of staff at Edderton Primary School, namely Colleague E, to state that they had attended a Child Protection training session when the Teacher knew this was not the case.

2. The Teacher’s actions at allegation 1(a) were lacking in integrity.

3. The Teacher’s actions at allegation 1(e) were dishonest or, in the alternative, were lacking in integrity.

4. The Teacher’s actions at allegation 1(g) were dishonest or, in the alternative, were lacking in integrity.

In light of the above it is alleged that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired, and she is unfit to teach as a result of breaching Parts 1.3, 1.4, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 4.1 and 4.4 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct (COPAC) 2012.

Teacher’s Admissions

The Teacher admitted allegations 1 (e), 1 (g), 3 (including dishonesty) and 4 (including dishonesty).  Those particulars of the allegation where therefore held as proved in terms of Rule 1.7.21. The Teacher denied that she was unfit to teach.

Hearing Papers

In accordance with Rule 1.7.17, the Panel admitted all of the documents and statements listed below as evidence for the purposes of the hearing:

Presenting Officer’s hearing papers

Presenting Officer’s Full Hearing Papers, including:

• Notice of Presenting Officer’s Case
• Complaint made by Parent A, undated
• Stage 2 Complaint letter to Parent A from The Highland Council, dated 4 February 2020
• Email from Parent A to Kirsten Macneil, dated 4 August 2019
• Email from Kirsten Macneil to Parent A, dated 15 August 2019
• Email chain between Kirsten Macneil and Parent A dated 22 August 2019
• Letter from Witness 3 to Kirsten Macneil, dated 8 February 2017
• Letter from Witness 2 to Kirsten Macneil, dated 9 January 2017
• Letter from Witness 2 to Kirsten Macneil, dated 10 February 2017
• GTCS statements as follows:
  • Parent A, mother of Pupil A
  • Witness 2, former nursery auxiliary, Gledfield Primary School – Present
  • Witness 2, former nursery auxiliary, Gledfield Primary School (Supplementary)
  • Witness 5, former probationary teacher, Gledfield Primary School (currently unsigned)
  • Witness 3, former Pupil Support Assistant, Gledfield Primary School
  • Colleague F, primary teacher, Gledfield Primary School
  • Colleague E, primary teacher
  • Witness 6, Primary Mental Health Worker, The Highland Council
  • Witness 4, Care and Learning Manager, The Highland Council
• Additional statements from Colleague A case:
  • Witness 2
  • Witness 3
  • Colleague F
• Teacher’s Response to Interim Report dated 22 March 2021 with appendices:
  • Letter from Professional 2 dated 1 March 2021
  • Ms MacNeil’s email to Colleague G dated 5 February 2019
  • [redacted] from February 2019
  • Diary entry for 10 February 2019
  • Minutes of meeting with Witness 2 on 14 February 2017
  • Minutes of meeting with Witness 2 on 15 February 2017
  • Quality Improvement Visit Record from 20 March 2017
  • Developing School Ethos Power Point dated 4 May 2017
  • Gledfield School’s improvement plan and a summary of the feedback
  • Email from Colleague H, PSA at Gledfield School to Colleague I, Additional Support Needs Manager, dated 3 October 2019
  • Evidence of meetings with Parent A  between 2017 and 2019
  • Highland Childrens (sic) Services: Highland Practice Model Guidance (Getting it Right for
  • Every Child 2017)
  • Reflections
  • COPAC reflections and action plan
  • CPD course bookings
  • Action plan
• Testimonials:
  • Supporter 1
  • Supporter 2
  • Supporter 3
  • Witness 9
  • Supporter 4
  • Supporter 5
  • Supporter 6
  • Witness 8
  • Supporter 7
  • Supporter 8

Response from Teacher’s Representative dated 28 June 2021 indicating no further information to be provided

Teacher’s Hearing Papers

• Teacher Case Form
• Statement of Kirsten Macneil, with exhibits:
• Exhibit KM1
• Exhibit KM2
• Exhibit KM3
• Exhibit KM4
• Exhibit KM5
• Exhibit KM6
• Statement of Witness 8
• Statement of Witness 9

Servicing Officer’s Hearing Papers

• Notice of Full Hearing, dated 15 May 2023 with cover email and delivery receipt
• Attendance Response form, dated 17 May 2023
• Procedural Meeting decision, dated 16 September 2022

Summary of evidence

Witness 1 – Parent A

Parent A is the parent of Pupil A. She affirmed and referred to her signed witness statement. She told the Panel about the school and her concerns about Colleague A and the Teacher, the Headteacher at Gledfield Primary School (“the school”). She explained that her child, Pupil A, had been abused by Colleague A, one of the teachers.  She said that she made a number of complaints about Colleague A and that nothing was done. She said that Pupil A and other children were being hit by Colleague A and that she spoke to the Teacher about her concerns. She said that the Teacher knew all about it but did nothing. She said that the Teacher was always absent, [redacted].

Parent A told the Panel that Pupil A had been assaulted by Pupil B and there were also concerns about Pupil A’s health as Parent A thought she may have ADHD. She discussed this with the school but the Teacher did nothing to get support for Pupil A. Parent A said that the Teacher had lied to her. Parent A said that Pupil A was not happy and said she was suicidal, but nothing was done. She went to her GP and begged them to intervene. She said the Teacher had said that letters and referrals had been sent, but, again, nothing was done. Parent A said that the Teacher had never properly dealt with the matter, and Parent A became increasingly concerned and angry. She said the Teacher “sat back” and did nothing at the meeting they eventually had with her and a mental health worker, Professional 1. On 22 July 2019, a further meeting took place, but Parent A considered that the Teacher had covered up matters including the assaults on her child by Colleague A and other pupils. Parent A said she had involved the Police, and the Teacher was ultimately replaced and a new Headteacher was put in place. The Police had told her this was a ‘massive child protection issue’, but nothing was done.

Parent A said that she had heard that Colleague A was notorious for abusing the pupils, including punishing children. She said she was advised in about October 2017 at a parents’ evening not to complain about Colleague A as that would make matters worse for Pupil A. She knew from one of the nursery teachers, Witness 2, that the Teacher felt bullied by Colleague A. She understood that multiple children were being “starved” by Colleague A. She also knew that Colleague A had hit Pupil A who did not want to go to school. She later witnessed Colleague A shouting at Pupil A and when challenged Colleague A told Parent A that she thought the problem was at home. She said that her older daughter had told her that Pupil A had said that the problem was Colleague A. She said she reported the concerns and made a complaint and involved the Parent Council, but said she was concerned they knew Colleague A and did not engage.

Parent A told the Panel about Pupil B who had twice tried to strangle Pupil A. She said that Pupil B had also thrown a large rock at Pupil A and was punched by Pupil B in the playground. There was also an incident when Pupil B tried to stab Pupil A in the dinner room. Eventually, Pupil A and other children had told Parent A. The Teacher at no time told her about these incidents although Parent A said she believed she had known. She had asked to see the Accident Book and was told there was no accident book.

Parent A said that in May 2019 Pupil A finally had a Child’s Plan put in place. She said that she had raised concerns with Colleague A about Pupil A but that her attitude had been “unbelievably” inappropriate. She had first asked the Teacher to speak to the Educational Psychologist in about November 2017. When she met with the Educational Psychologist, she considered that she was dismissive and “blasé” about Pupil A. The PMHW, Professional 1 became involved in about December 2018 and she had asked the Teacher to continue to monitor Pupil A who was expressing suicidal thoughts. She had asked the Teacher to contact Professional 1 again but she heard nothing else.

Parent A said that it was obvious that Pupil A was stressed and the problems were obvious. At the meeting she had with Professional 1 and the Teacher, Parent A said she had become very angry such that Professional 1 had cried and left the meeting. Parent A said the Teacher did nothing. Parent A said she was totally reliant on the Teacher who had done nothing. Parent A said she learned that Pupil A should have had a Child’s Plan and had required to push hard to get one. She later learned from Professional 1 that she knew nothing about the abuse of Pupil A by Colleague A and the Teacher apologised to her for not telling Professional 1 about the abuse by Colleague A.

Parent A said that eight years later her child, Pupil A, was still very anxious about school but she had moved school and now had an Educational Psychologist. She said that there had been a two year delay in getting a Child’s Plan in place due to the Teacher’s inaction.

During cross examination, Parent A said that before Pupil A went to school, she had concerns that she may have ADHD. Colleague A was suspended in late 2017 and she did not teach Pupil A after that time. She accepted that meetings with the school took place on 18 December 2017 and 11 January 2018, and she was referred to the notes of those meetings. She stated that, despite raising the conduct of Colleague A many times, there was never any response to that issue and no action was taken. There is no mention of a child plan or discussions about Colleague A in the notes of either meeting. Parent A accepted that a Child’s Plan had not been suggested. She said she had provided to the GTC Scotland the emails she said she had sent to the Teacher, and which had not been acted on. Parent A said that she had never seen the letter dated 31 July 2019 from Professional 1 to the Teacher and copied it to her. She said she had told Professional 1 and her successor Witness 6 all about her concerns with Colleague A although his witness statement indicates that details were not provided by Parent A. She said that her recollection was quite the opposite of what Witness 6 states.

Witness 2 (Colleague C in the allegations)

Witness 2 took the oath and was referred to her written witness statement. She told the Panel about her role as a Nursery Auxiliary at the school where the Teacher was the headteacher. She told the Panel about her emotional support for the Teacher, who she felt was being bullied by Colleague A whom she described as a “very strong character”. She said that she never had a staff appraisal or any formal Nursery staff meeting and had felt that the Teacher was struggling and could not cope. Witness 2 told the Panel that the Teacher had managed a probation teacher badly and had not managed to complete the required GTC paperwork.

Witness 2 told the Panel that in January and February 2017, she had reported concerns about an incident with Colleague A regarding keeping pupils back from lunch. Witness 2 said that Colleague A would stop one pupil in particular from attending his lunch at least twice a week. She said that she told the Teacher about this each time, but she did nothing. Witness 2 told the Panel that on about 19 or 20 December 2016 Colleague A challenged her about taking that child for lunch and then complained to the Teacher on the last day of term that Witness 2 had disrespected her and made her look stupid. Witness 2 was so concerned that she formally reported the matter to the Teacher in a letter dated 9 January 2017. She said she was concerned and frustrated as the issue had gone on for so long. Witness 2 said that she did not know whether anything was done in respect of Colleague A.

On 10 February 2017, Witness 2 sent a further letter to the Teacher raising serious concerns about Colleague A who she described as “spiteful…uninviting and vindictive.” The Teacher had done nothing, and she was worried about the impact of Colleague A’s behaviour on the pupils. She later met with the Teacher and said she would refer matters to her superiors. The Teacher took notes, but none were provided to Witness 2 despite the notes in evidence provided by the Teacher dated 14 February 2017. Having considered those notes, Witness 2 said that it appeared to cover what was discussed with the Teacher, but she did not know whether the action points listed were ever completed. She considered the issues she raised were very serious and damaging, and she had made that clear to the Teacher in many conversations. Witness 2 was concerned that the Nursery was not a nurturing environment as a result of Colleague A’s behaviour. Witness 2 said that Colleague A’s conduct demeaned the pupils.

Witness 2 said that she felt unsupported by Highland Council as well as the Teacher and felt that if she “stuck her head above the parapet she would get shot”. She thought that if she had done so nothing was going to change. Witness 2 submitted a whistleblowing complaint form on 28 August 2017, and, at that point, nobody had responded to her earlier concerns. No one took a statement from her until a year afterwards.

Witness 2 told the Panel that she had worked hard to run and manage the Nursery and said she got no support from the Teacher. The Teacher later messaged Witness 2 at 9 pm one evening to tell her that she would have to change her hours. Witness 2 said that they needed to have a much-needed meeting about the nursery and then informed the Teacher that she could no longer work in the environment.

Witness 2 told the Panel about an incident when Colleague A had screamed at her and a primary 7 pupil for moving a box and that Colleague A had grabbed the pupil’s arm to stop him from taking the box, pulling his arm away. The pupil was “stunned” and she had checked with him afterwards that it was alright. She said Colleague A’s conduct had been intimidating to the whole class as Colleague A had “bellowed” and it had been an “onslaught” out of the blue. There had been a “stunned silence” from the class. She said that Colleague A’s conduct had been frightening and she had been concerned for the child. She told the Teacher about this incident as she had been shocked by Colleague A’s behaviour but did not report it as a child protection issue. She said that she did not know what was done about that incident and could not recall when the incident took place.

In August 2017, Witness 2 said she reported the matter to the Quality Assurance Manager (QAM). She recalled Colleague A had gone on long term sick and was due to come back to work and that had prompted her complaint to the QAM.

Witness 2 said she had never seen anything physical between Colleague A and Pupil A. Colleague A had wanted to “break” the children and remould them. She said that she was terrified when she was in Colleague A’s class. She does not recall discussing any of her concerns with Parent A whilst Witness 2 was still at the school. Parent A had contacted her on Facebook and had asked her to confirm when she had whistle blown about Colleague A. She did not recall telling Parent A about Colleague A or about the Teacher.

Witness 2 told the Panel that she found it quite distressing that she did not do something earlier. She said that the Teacher was ineffective and had a complete lack of empathy for the children. The Teacher was the Named Person for all the pupils in the school and she said they were definitely not being looked after properly.

During cross examination, Witness 2 told the Panel that the Teacher had responded to her concerns about Colleague A expressed in December 2017 and discussed it with her, but she said nothing had changed. She accepted that she did not know the details of what had happened to Colleague A, but knew that Colleague A was absent from work for some months, returning in August 2017 and that she left again in December 2017 and did not return. She accepted that the details about what steps were taken in respect of Colleague A would be confidential. She said that the Nursery had an accident book.

In response to Panel questions, Witness 2 stated that she had child protection training every two years provided by Highland Council. Any concerns were reported to the Headteacher as she was the named person and there no particular format or process required. She did know how concerns were recorded. Witness 2 said that her concerns about Colleague A’s conduct were child protection concerns.

Witness 3 (Colleague D in the allegations)

Witness 3 started working as a Pupil Support Assistant at Gledfield Primary School in August 2016 to cover maternity leave and remained there until April 2017. She took the affirmation and referred to her written witness statement. She told the Panel about her time working in the classroom with Colleague A.  She stated that she found the approach taken by Colleague A in the classroom was “over the top” and things did not feel right. In the morning the pupils were “barked” at by Colleague A from the moment they took off their coats. Colleague A would shout at the pupils if they were not fast enough, and the class were told all the time to be quiet so that she had to whisper to the pupils.

Witness 3 said that Colleague A would lean into sitting pupils in an intimidating manner, she was intimidating to Witness 3 too. It was not just shouting at pupils but a “long drawn out process” of shouting and leaning over the pupils. Witness 3 said that Colleague A would blame pupils and humiliate them and would often stop pupils from going to lunch.  She would make pupils sit on a chair and they would not be allowed to move. Witness 3 said it was a punishing process. She said that Colleague A’s behaviour became increasingly worse in the period she was there. Witness 3 said that Colleague A shouted really aggressively at the pupils repeatedly, in an annoyed and frustrated manner, and it appeared that Colleague A did not like children.

Witness 3 told the Panel that she did eventually pass on her concerns about Colleague A to the Teacher, but that it was not anything really official. She spoke to the Teacher whom she thought was approachable, but she did not seem surprised at all. The Teacher did not suggest what action she would take. Witness 3 had suggested that the Teacher sit in the classroom and observe Colleague A. Witness 3 stated that she noticed that nothing changed. She stated that she did not watch Colleague A’s every move but had a feeling that ‘this isn’t right.’ Whenever she felt that she would go to the Teacher and tell her what had happened.

Witness 3 referred the Panel to the lengthy letter she sent to the Teacher dated 8 February 2017 which set a large number of incidents and her concerns about Colleague A in some detail. This set out incidents where she had witnessed Colleague A shouting at and humiliating pupils. Witness 3 said that she had told the Teacher everything and this had all been discussed at the meeting she had with the Teacher about Colleague A. She did not recall seeing the meeting notes made by the Teacher dated 15 February 2017.

Witness 3 told the Panel that in her child protection training she was told to speak up if she had any concerns. She said she eventually put her concerns in a letter to the Teacher dated 8 February 2017 and sent this by email to her. She said that it never went past speaking to the Teacher, but she thought that if she put it in writing the Teacher could alleviate her concerns or could speak to the Colleague A. Two to three days after she sent the email with her written concerns, she was told that Colleague A had left the school. She did not know if it was anything to do with her email. Despite offering to speak to Colleague A, she stated that she never got the chance as the Teacher did tell her that Colleague A was not interested in speaking to Witness 3. The Teacher also said to her that she would refer her concerns to her superior but said nothing else.

Witness 3 said that the Teacher never gave her any assurances and just listened to her concerns. She heard nothing further but Colleague A’s behaviour did not change. Witness 3 told the Panel about a particular incident involving another child who was in Colleague A’s class. The pupil came to school the day after their dad had died and Colleague A was shouting at another pupil. Witness 3 had felt quite tearful as that pupil had suffered a trauma and Colleague A’s behaviour had been “diabolical” and insensitive. Other than comments to other staff, Witness 3 said that she did not discuss her concerns with anyone else given it is a small community.

Witness 3 was at the school for a short time and stated that in her dealings with the Teacher, she seemed very mild mannered and nice and had certainly listened to what she had to say. Once she sent the email, Colleague A left and that was the only concrete evidence she had that something was passed on about what she had reported.

Witness 3 was also referred to and adopted her witness statement to the GTC about Colleague A in relation to the fitness to practise proceedings in respect of her.  In that statement she describes Colleague A as unprofessional, acting superior and arrogant. Witness 3 stated that Colleague A would regularly shout in an aggressive manner towards the pupils and tower over them giving them a row in a physically intimidating way. Witness 3 felt that Colleague A would purposely humiliate the pupils and she would often use a patronising tone. Witness 3 felt that she bullied the children and was very aggressive toward them. Witness 3 recounts in her witness statement a number of particular incidents of Colleague A’s shouting and her inappropriate behaviour towards pupils, including keeping pupils from gym and lunch. Witness 3 said that she was often scared of Colleague A and tearful.

In response to cross examination, Witness 3 accepted that she did not know what the Teacher was doing about the concerns she had raised about Colleague A but observed that nothing changed.  

Witness 4

Witness 4 took the Oath and was referred to his witness statement. He confirmed that he had signed the statement and that the contents of the statement were accurate.

Witness 4 confirmed that he was currently an Area Manager with Highland Council and explained his employment history, including his experience as a teacher and his academic qualifications. Witness 4 confirmed that between 1991 and 2016 he had been registered with the GTCS and had re-registered around 2021 following a restructuring of Highland Council (the Council).

Witness 4 explained the difference between the Council’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint process. He told the Panel that a stage 1 complaint was normally the first complaint and is made to the service being complained about. He said that in the setting of a school, this meant that the person making the complaint would usually go to the headteacher and that the complaint was generally dealt with at the school level.

He explained that a stage 2 complaint could occur in a number of ways. If a parent was not satisfied with a headteacher’s response or where the complaint is of a very serious nature and the council takes the view that it requires to be looked at. He explained how a stage two investigation would take place.

In relation to the complaint about the Teacher, Witness 4 said the complaint had been made ‘some time ago and he couldn’t remember if a Child’s Plan was in place for Pupil A but suspected there wasn’t. Witness 4 explained that as soon as more than one service was involved then in his view a Child’s Plan was needed. Witness 4 said that a headteacher was responsible for learning and teaching for all children in a school and for discipline and good order and in law was accountable for the running of the school.

Witness 4 stated that if he were investigating a complaint like this, he would take a ‘multi-faceted’ approach and speak to all the staff involved. The investigator would look at any records to and discuss it with whomever they felt necessary. He said as the Teacher was no longer in the role of headteacher when the investigation was carried out, he talked to the acting headteacher about the records.

Witness 4 said it was clear at this time that Pupil A had additional support needs and required the intervention of other services such a primary mental health. He told the Panel that if the Teacher had not been able to engage these services she should have asked her line manager for help and that there was a clear process for doing this via the support needs manager or him.

In relation to the creation of a Child’s Plan, this was dependent on the needs of the child. If a child was exhibiting challenges in learning the initial approach was to create a Form 1 which was an informal report internal to the school. If this was not successful, then a Child’s Plan would be created. Once created it should contain a background, a chronology, clear targets, who will provide support, and a time frame for reviewing. The plan should be reviewed at least every 6 months or sooner if there is a significant event.

He explained that if a number of different agencies held knowledge this would all be contained in the Child’s Plan. Witness 4 said that a headteacher would normally be the ‘named person’ on the Child’s Plan if it was a single agency involvement. If multi-agency, it would be agreed where the highest level of need was and then agree a lead professional on that basis. In relation to Pupil A, Witness 4 confirmed that the head teacher would be the named person.

Witness 4 confirmed that his findings were that a Child’s Plan should have been created at an earlier stage, but was unable to say how much sooner. He stated that any delay in the creation of the Child’s Plan had not delayed the provision of assistance to Pupil A as psychological services were involved with Pupil A in 2017 before the creation of any Child’s Plan.

Witness 4 stated that if no Child’s Plan existed it could result in a ‘loss of knowledge’ due to information not being available in one document.

In cross examination, Witness 4 accepted that timing for the creation of a Child’s Plan was dependent on the particular circumstances of each case, and that whether a headteacher was the ‘named person’ was a matter for the professional expertise of those involved. When referred to notes of a meeting that took place on 18 December 2017 in relation to Pupil A and notes of a further ‘Solution Focused Meeting’ that took place on 11 January 2018 Witness 4 accepted that it appeared that an educational psychologist was involved at this time and was dealing with any concerns. When asked if he had seen any reference to a Child’s Plan prior to it being raised in a letter from Professional 1  to the Teacher dated 31 July 2019, Witness 4 said he could not recall. He also stated that he could not recall if a Child’s Plan meeting had been arranged for November 2019 or had taken place then. He confirmed that the arrangement of such a meeting was dependent on the availability of all involved.

Witness 4 confirmed that there had been concerns in relation to Colleague A, and that the Teacher talked to him about her concerns and that matters came to a head in 2017. He said he couldn’t recall if the Teacher had forwarded letters of concern regarding Colleague A to him from Witness 2 and Witness 3 but did recall concerns were raised by others. He said he recalled visiting the school but not the exact date and accepted that it was likely he had told the Teacher it was her responsibility to ‘deal with matters’. Witness 4 could not recall if he was aware that the Teacher had contacted HR.

Witness 5

Witness 5 took the affirmation and was referred to her witness statement. She confirmed that she had signed the statement and that the contents of the statement were accurate.

Witness 5 told the Panel that she was originally from Canada but spent some time teaching in the Highlands for a year and then in Aberdeen. She said she started teaching at the school in August 2018 as a ‘flexible route’ probationer. She said it took a year to obtain her full registration.

Witness 5 said she loved teaching at the school. She said that there were some difficult parts. Witness 5 said she reached out for help from the Teacher, but she was not very receptive and was not the most supportive person.

Witness 5 explained to the Panel that there were certain children at the school that caused her concern. She talked about two children who she had concerns about who she said came to school unclean and didn’t have snacks with them. Witness 5 said that she had raised concerns with the Teacher but that she didn’t act on the concerns. Witness 5 said she took action of her own volition to address her concerns. She said that she didn’t get any backup from the Teacher.

Witness 5 also told the Panel about another child, Pupil B, who could be quite violent in school. She said she had met with the child’s mother and tried to come up with a plan to help the child. Witness 5 said the Teacher was not involved and basically said ‘good luck’ and that there was not much that they could do for the child.

Witness 5 also told the Panel about her involvement with Pupil B who ‘just showed up one day.’ Witness 5 said the child had a foster parent who was nice, but there had been no meeting about his needs. Witness 5 detailed the needs of the child and her concerns about him. She said Pupil B had been aggressive to other children every day. She said some pupils had been affected in the short term but could not comment if there had been long terms effects.

Witness 5 said that the Teacher didn’t acknowledge the situation so Witness 5 made a plan that if Pupil B put his hands on another child, he would be sent home. She said his foster parent agreed to this. She said this worked until the Teacher realised what was happening and told her she couldn’t do this as she could not exclude pupils. Witness 5 said Pupil B hurt his PSA, gym teacher and other Pupils. Witness 5 told the Panel that she raised concerns, but the Teacher ignored them and either said it wasn’t important or there was nothing that could be done about it.

Witness 5 told the Panel that she was supposed to have observations every two weeks and meetings with her mentor. She said this started fine but the observations and meetings fizzled out and she was missing observations when she came to getting her GTCS record signed off. Witness 5 said she had spoken to RZ at Highland Council and explained her concerns and that she felt she wasn’t being supported by her mentor or the Teacher. Witness 5 said RZ had told her to get the other teacher at the school to do the observations that she would then sign it off and say there were special circumstances. Witness 5 said when she raised this with the Teacher, the Teacher had told her to backdate the observations essentially fabricating them. Witness 5 said she wasn’t comfortable with this, and that the Teacher had said this was ok.

Witness 5 said that the Teacher never observed her and that she could count on one hand the number of times she even came into the classroom.

Witness 5 also told the Panel that she had asked the Teacher to sign off her final GTC Scotland report in June 2019, but that she did not do this until September 2019. Witness 5 said she asked her to sign it in June as it had an impact on how much she was paid in her second year. She said that she went for ‘three or four weeks ‘without full pay. Witness 5 said she called GTC Scotland, and they said they would do what they could, and she also spoke to the new school secretary and that eventually the Teacher did sign it off. When asked if she had requested the report be signed off during the school holiday Witness 5 accepted this could be the case but questioned why it took until September 2019 for it to be signed off as the school term started in August.

Witness 5 also told the Panel that the pupils told their parents what was happening with Pupil B, but there had been no official notification from the Teacher to parents about what was occurring.

Witness 5 explained her involvement with Pupil A. She said that Parent A had a lot of issues with the school. Witness 5 said that Parent A had told her that Pupil A needed to be tested and helped by mental health. Witness 5 said she had tried to talk to the Teacher but that the Teacher dismissed her concerns. She said the Teacher didn’t support Pupil A.

In cross examination, Witness 5 accepted that the Teacher had been at the school longer than her and would know the pupils and their families. She also accepted that she had not been privy to what the Teacher may actually have done after Witness 5 raised concerns. She also accepted that she had not provided any detail about any salary loss she might have incurred and had not been asked to produce any documentation to support her claim that she had suffered salary loss.

In reply to questions from the Panel, Witness 5 confirmed that she had completed her GTCS report online at the end of the 2019 school year. She could not confirm what the process was for the GTC Scotland contacting the Teacher to advise her that she had to sign the report and when the report was actually signed. She said it was signed a few days after she had contacted the school secretary and that she had not directly contacted the Teacher as she had no interest in talking to her. In relation to any loss of salary Witness 5 said she had probably noticed in when she received her August pay and then contacted the GTCS who said that the report still needed to be signed off.

Witness 6

Witness 6 took the affirmation and was referred to his witness statement. He confirmed that he had signed the statement and that the contents of the statement were accurate.

He explained his academic and employment background to the Panel. Witness 6 told the Panel that at the time he made his written statement he was a Primary Mental Health Worker with Highland Council.

Witness 6 explained how a child was referred to the Primary Mental Health service. He said they could be asked for assistance, most commonly via a school. He said parents could also self-refer and if so, the service utilised a lot of Child’s Plan meetings for such referrals. He said usually first contact would be through a Child’s Plan meeting or a solution focused meeting typically held at the school. Witness 6 explained a Child’s Plan was a multi-agency plan kept by a school or professional group in which needs were identified and worked through. He said a ‘named person’ would be responsible for it. Witness 6 explained that if a Child’s Plan was not in place complications could arise from a lack of full information and it could affect the understanding of the complexities of a case.

In relation to Pupil B, Witness 6 said that it was his colleague Professional 1 who first got involved with Pupil A. He said from reading the case notes Parent A had expressed concerns and asked to have access to a mental health clinician. He said he ‘believed’ Professional 1 attended a meeting at the school and it was agreed that there would be a string of meetings to carry out an assessment. He could not provide further details as he stated he did not have access to the original ‘paper file.’

Witness 6 told the Panel of the treatment that he had provided to Pupil A. He confirmed that a Child’s Plan had been in place when he became involved with Child A. He said that Professional 1’s assessment had been ‘fairly inconclusive’ and no direct referral had been recommended. He said that Professional 1 had left post and his first involvement had been at a meeting on 1 November 2019. Witness 6 detailed the actions that materialised at that meeting and required follow up. He detailed his involvement with Pupil A and that a referral had been made to a Neurodevelopmental Assessment Service Centre. Witness 6 detailed his further involvement with Pupil A until he discharged her at the end of the summer break in 2020.

When specifically asked if a delay in the completion of a Child’s Plan for Pupil A would have caused a delay in appropriate assistance being provided to Pupil A, Witness 6 stated he could not comment.

When asked in cross examination if he was aware that an additional support officer had been involved with Pupil A since 2017, Witness 6 said he could not recall. He said he was aware an educational psychologist had been involved but could not say when this commenced. He stated that he had not reviewed his colleague’s notes prior to providing a written statement or giving evidence. When it was put to Witness 6 that Parent A had said the educational psychologist had been told by Parent A about Colleague A’s involvement with Pupil B, Witness 6 said he did not recall this specifically. He said he was aware from the educational psychologist that a teacher had been suspended as a result of incidents with pupils. When it was put to Witness 6 that Parent A had stated that she had discussed this with Professional 1, he said he could not specifically recall being aware of this. He said he would have expected something of this significance to have been in Professional 1’s letter to represent the parent’s views. Witness 6 referred to paragraph 15 of Parent A’s witness statement and her evidence that Professional1 was shocked that she had not been advised of issues with Colleague A. He was asked if he had seen this in Pupil A’s record and said he couldn’t recall. Witness 6 accepted that he was aware that there were issues relating to Colleague A even though he had said in his written statement that Pupil A’s parents had not talked about it. Witness 6 stated that he was aware prior to his initial meeting with Pupil A’s parents that there had been issues with Colleague A but couldn’t recall if these had been raised at the meeting.

Witness 6 told the Panel that Pupil A had not talked in any great detail about any involvement with Colleague A. He also said that Pupil A’s parent never mentioned Colleague A to him. Witness 6 said that Pupil A’s parents had mentioned to them there had been an incident, but there had been no information from the school. He said he couldn’t recall the nature of the incident. He also said there was nothing in Professional 1’s notes about not being given full information from individuals.

Witness 6 stated that it was his view that Pupil A’s anxiety was in the context of her family and pre-dated incidents at school.

Witness 7 – The Teacher

The Teacher took the oath and was referred to her written witness statement. She confirmed that she had signed the statement and that the contents of the statement were accurate.

The Teacher set out her academic background and her teaching career up to joining the school. She explained that in 2016 she was given a ‘cluster’ of the school and another school. She said that initially, this worked but that in February 2017 a teacher left the school and she had to start covering class teaching. The Teacher explained that she resigned from this post in May 2020 [redacted]. She explained that over the three-year period from 2017 to 2020, she had been [redacted].

The Teacher also told the Panel that she currently had a permanent contract with Highland Council as a class teacher. She set out her responsibilities.

The Teacher told the Panel that the ‘last few years’ at the school had been extremely challenging [redacted]. [redacted] in February 2017 when she received two formal complaints about Colleague A. The Teacher said that in November 2017 Colleague A was suspended following an allegation made by Parent A. The Teacher set out the process that led up to Colleague A being suspended.

The Teacher said that when Colleague A was suspended it had not been possible to find a constant supply teacher and she had required to teach classes, and this impacted on her role. She said that she had requested principal teacher management support but that this had been denied. The Teacher also explained that in January 2019 both her clerical assistants resigned, and this added further pressure to her workload. The Teacher said that this had a severe impact on her health and that eventually she was signed off sick in September 2019 and did not return to her role prior to resigning from it.

In relation to the allegation, the Teacher said she recalled that she had received complaint letters relating to Colleague A from Witness 2 and Witness 3 in or around January and February 2017. She said prior to this she had not received formal complaints, but colleagues had informally expressed frustrations about Colleague A.  The Teacher said she had no recollection of being told by Witness 2 of an incident in August. The Teacher said when she received informal complaints she discussed the issues with the parties but accepted that she did not mediate the issues well.

The Teacher said when she received the formal letter from Witness 2 she spoke with Colleague A. She said that when she received the letter from both Witness 2 and Witness 3 she forwarded the complaints to Witness 4 her area manager. She said that when she discussed the problem with him during a face to face visit at the school he told her it was her responsibility. The Teacher said she contacted HR for advice. She said she was told to discuss the concerns with Colleague A but not to share the letter. The Teacher said she met with Witness 2 and Witness 3 separately and it was agreed she would talk to Colleague A.

The Teacher described what steps she had taken to implement a new promoting positive behaviour policy and what steps she had taken to attempt to discuss matters with Colleague A. She accepted that she had not fed back to Witness 2 and Witness 3 and accepted that she now understood why they felt their complaints had not been dealt with.

The Teacher said she had not been made aware of any allegations that Colleague A had physically assaulted or grabbed any pupil. She said if she had been aware she would have reported such issues to her line manager. The Teacher denied failing to act on multiple child protection concerns.

In relation to incidents of physical abuse committed by Pupil B, the Teacher said she was adamant that she had never been told of any such incidents and that had she been she would have reported them to the pupils’ parents.  She also said that she now understood there had been two allegations of Pupil B assaulting other pupils that had taken place when she was off sick. These had apparently been investigated at the time and it had been concluded that there was no evidence. She said she was never aware of these incidents whilst in post and had she been, she would have liaised with staff and parents.

In relation to the alleged failure to complete a Child’s Plan for Pupil A timeously, the Teacher set out her initial contact with Parent A in December 2017 and the ‘Solution Focussed Meeting’ that occurred in January 2018. She referred the Panel to the minutes of these meetings and stated that it had not been considered necessary to implement a Child’s Plan at this point. She said a further ‘Solution Focussed Meeting’ had taken place on 19 May 2019, a review meeting on 1 July 2019 and a meeting between Pupil A’s parent and the Primary Mental Health Worker on 22 July 2019. She detailed what steps were taken and what resources were offered to Pupil A’s parents.

The Teacher referred to the letter from the Primary Mental Health Worker dated 31 July 2019 and the email from her dated 9 August 2019 both requesting that a Child’s Plan should be arranged. The Teacher explained that she did not receive these until returning to school after the summer holidays on 13 August. The Teacher explained the difficulties she had been met with when trying to schedule a Child’s Plan meeting and that the first date when it was going to be possible to have this meeting was November 2019. The Teacher explained that even though it had not been possible to hold a meeting, during the intervening period the education psychologist and additional support needs officer were available for consultation. The Teacher said she also ensured that she supported Pupil A to the best of her ability during this period.

The Teacher explained that [redacted].

In relation to the alleged failure to share details of physical and mental abuse suffered by Pupil A with mental health professionals, the Teacher accepted that the allegations against Colleague A relating to Pupil A may have been relevant to mental health professionals treating Pupil A. However, she explained that she considered that as these allegations had been the subject of investigation by others they were confidential. In light of this, she emailed the educational psychologist working with Pupil A and asked her to contact her line manager who had been directly involved in the investigation. The Teacher stated she considered that this was appropriate and in the circumstances all she could do.

The Teacher said she admitted she had asked Witness 5 to fabricate that she had been the subject of observations. The Teacher explained that she was on sick leave between November 2018 and January 2019 and when she returned Witness 5 advised that there was a gap in her observations and the Teacher had suggested she backdate her observation. The Teacher stated that the observation was done but that she suggested it be recorded as being done at an earlier date. The Teacher explained that she was unfamiliar with the probationary issues and at the time there were also a number of staffing issues. She said she did not suggest that this was an excuse. She explained to the Panel how she had reflected on this issue and the steps she had taken to ensure it did nor re-occur.

However, the Teacher denied that she had failed to sign Witness 5’s GTCS final report timeously. She told the Panel that she did not know when it was being suggested that she had received the report or told it needed to be signed. She said if it was sent in June 2019 then it was possible that this was during the school holidays, and she may not have received the email until she returned after the summer holidays. The Teacher said she would not have intentionally ignored the final report and that as soon as she became aware that it required to be signed, she apologised to Witness 5 and did what was necessary. The Teacher said she had no knowledge about Witness 5 suffering any wage loss.

The Teacher also told the Panel that she admitted that she had asked Colleague E to state that she had attended child protection training when this had not occurred. The Teacher explained that in June 2019 Edderton Primary School had an inspection and that she knew that Colleague E was up to date with her child protection training. She said she did not have a clear recollection of what had occurred but suspected that she had gotten Colleague E to sign an attendance record for a course she had not attended. The Teacher said she deeply regretted her actions, had reflected on them and accepted responsibility for them.

The Teacher told the Panel she denied any of her actions were lacking in integrity but admitted that what she had done in allegations 1(e) and 1(g) was dishonest.

The Teacher told the Panel that she had fully engaged with the GTCS process. She said she had reflected on what had occurred and spent time considering CoPaC. She said she appreciated the seriousness of her dishonesty, but assured the Panel that these were errors of judgement in very particular circumstances and would not happen again.

The Teacher referred the Panel to a development plan that she had produced. She also explained that she had undertaken targeted CPD on [redacted] and honesty and personal values and referred the Panel to various certificates for these courses.

The Teacher told the Panel that she had realised that the stress she was under at the time of the incidents had affected her judgement. She explained she had now developed a mentoring relationship with another teacher at her current school. She said the mentoring meetings took place weekly and the focus was on providing her with support and helping her move forward. She said the discussions were linked to CoPaC and that she and her mentor also discussed CPD courses that she had undertaken, and the Teacher’s health and well-being. She referred the Panel to notes of various mentoring meetings that were before the Panel.

The Teacher also referred the Panel to various testimonials including one from her current headteacher.

During cross examination, the Teacher accepted that it was not necessary for a concern to be in writing for her to take action in relation to it. When asked if she had the power to suspend colleagues, she stated that she did not believe she had which was why she had contacted her line manager. She said she had not asked HR whether she had the power to suspend as she was seeking advice as quickly as she could and needed support. The Teacher accepted that Witness 2 and Witness 3 had witnessed concerns involving Colleague A. She also accepted on reflection that she could have done more and said she wished her voice had been heard ‘higher up’ the managerial chain and also pointed out that Colleague A was not at work at the time.

The Teacher explained that Colleague A was seen as an ‘old fashioned teacher’ who expected pupils to be quiet, sit at desks and get on with work. She said that in her then role she was a ‘sounding board’ for colleagues to vent their frustrations, but if she had had any concerns, she would have acted upon them.

In relation to the completion of a Child’s Plan for Pupil A, the Teacher accepted in cross examination that it would have been possible to create a Child’s Plan in 2017 and that a number of different professionals had been involved with Pupil A since 2017. However, she stated that there was professional involvement in 2017 but there then was a gap when no other professional involvement was necessary. She said she would have been aware of any issues that arose during this period.

Witness 8

Witness 8 took the oath and was referred to her written witness statement. She confirmed that she had signed the statement and that the contents of the statement were accurate.

Witness 8 told the Panel she was a qualified Primary School Clerical Assistant. She explained she had started this role at the school in 2009 and had worked part-time 3 days a week. She said she had left the role at Christmas time 2018 and then worked 5 hours a week until Easter 2019. She explained what her role involved.

Witness 8 said she had known the Teacher since she employed her in 2009. Witness 8 said she had a close working relationship with the Teacher and had worked in the same office for 9 years. She said that if parents came in for an unplanned meeting it might occur in the office and although she would offer to leave, she was often asked to stay. She explained that planned meetings took place in another office.

Witness 8 told the Panel that the Teacher had made many changes at the school including introducing an ‘open door policy’ under which any parent could phone or come in to discuss concerns. If this occurred, the Teacher then spoke to the individuals involved and reported back to the parent. If the Teacher felt she could not solve a problem, she would ask advice from her immediate superior. Witness 8 said that some of these concerns related to Colleague A and that the Teacher talked to her.

Witness 8 told the Panel of the pressures she considered the Teacher had been under. She said that the school was short staffed and due to budget cuts, the school couldn’t employ a full-time teacher. Witness 8 said the Teacher had then to take on teaching a class as well as her role a headteacher over two schools. Witness 8 said the Teacher started working very early until very late. She became concerned about the Teacher’s mental health and had taken it on herself to contact one of her superiors who visited the school, but nothing changed. Witness 8 told the Panel she felt that the Teacher had been badly let down by management.

Witness 8 said she was aware of Witness 3’s concerns. Witness 8 said that Witness 3 had shown her letter to people in the staffroom. She said that she was aware that the Teacher had forwarded Witness 3’s letter to Witness 4 and asked for his advice. Witness 8 said the Teacher told her that Witness 4 had told the Teacher it was for her to sort out.

Witness 8 said that she thought Witness 2 did not like Colleague A – she said Witness 2 would come into the office and ‘rant’ about Colleague A. Witness 8 said she thought that Witness 2 did not like the way Colleague A taught. Witness 8 said that Colleague A was ‘firm’. Witness 8 told the Panel she had not seen Colleague A bully or humiliate any pupil and had not been aware of any formal complaint.

Witness 8 also told the `panel she was aware that Colleague A left the school as a result of concerns involving Pupil A. She said Parent A came to the school with her concerns and that the Teacher was liaising with other bodies about Pupil A. Witness 8 said her impression was that Parent A was happy with the Teacher’s response to her concerns. She said the Teacher asked Pupil A every morning how she was.

Witness 8 said that in her time working with the Teacher, she had found her to be honest and fair. If she made a mistake, she would own up to it.

In cross examination, Witness 8 said she had been surprised by the contents of the letter from Witness 3 and that what was in it was beyond anything she had seen. Witness 8 said that she had not talked to Witness 3 as she didn’t know her that well. She said that Witness 2 had come in at break time and ‘vented’ at her – she said that Witness 2 said Colleague A had shouted at pupils but had not given specific examples. Witness 8 said that Colleague A might keep pupils back to finish work but never for any length of time.

Witness 8 said that she thought that a Child’s Plan for Pupil A had been put in place quite quickly after Colleague A had been removed from the school, but explained she didn’t know much about Child’s Plans.  She said Parent A had not come in to speak to the Teacher regularly so far as she knew. Witness 8 accepted that Parent A made allegations that Colleague A had been physically abusive.

Submissions on Facts

The Presenting Officer submitted that in terms of Rule 1.7.15, the burden of proof lay on the GTCS and that the standard of proof was the balance of probabilities. He referred the Panel to the GTCS Practice Statement of Fact-Finding in Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases in relation to the approach to take to the assessment of credibility and reliability of witnesses.

The Presenting Officer submitted that the GCTS witnesses in general had given clear accounts of events to the best of their recollection and their evidence was broadly consistent with contemporaneous documents. They conceded when they could not recall events and had not been evasive.

The Presenting Officer stated that he left the assessment of the credibility and reliability of the Teacher to the Panel but asked the Panel to consider that her response to a significant number of questions was a lack of recall and suggested that her reflections and concessions came late in the day. In relation to Witness 8, he submitted that her evidence should be given little weight.

In relation to Allegation 1(a), The Presenting Officer submitted that there was an initial failure to act on child protection concerns raised by Witness 2 and Witness 3 about a number of incidents involving Pupil A. He also submitted that there was a second failure by the Teacher not challenging the decision to allow Colleague A to return to work.

The Presenting Officer took the Panel through each of the particulars of Allegation 1 (a) and identified the evidence that he submitted supported his contention that the Panel should find this allegation proved. He submitted, however, that in relation to Allegation 1 (a)(ii), there was insufficient evidence to allow the Panel to find that Colleague A had kept a pupil back at the end of the day without telling his parents, and asked the Panel to delete this part of the allegation, namely ‘and keeping him back at the end of the school day without communicating this to his parents’

In relation to Allegation 1 (b), the Presenting Officer submitted that this was spoken to by Witness 5 and Parent A. He submitted that this evidence showed that there were regular incidents of Pupil B committing acts of physical abuse against other pupils that parents were not told about. He further submitted that Parent A specifically spoke to an incident where Pupil B had assaulted her daughter and in her view the Teacher had covered this up. He stated that in her oral evidence, Parent A had stated that there were a number of such incidents.

In relation to Allegation 1 (c), the Presenting Officer submitted that this was clearly spoken to by Parent A. He further submitted that Witness 4 had stated that a Child’s Plan should have been completed sooner. The Presenting Officer   submitted that there was insufficient evidence before the Panel to allow that the failure to complete the Child’s Plan timeously gave rise to a delay in the provision of appropriate assistance and invited the Panel to find this allegation proved under deletion of the reference to any delay in provision of services, namely ‘thus unnecessarily delaying the input of appropriate assistance for Pupil A.’

In relation to Allegation 1 (d), the Presenting Officer submitted this was spoken to by Parent A who had given clear evidence about what she claimed had not been discussed with her. Mr Weir accepted that Witness 6’s evidence in relation to this allegation was of limited assistance, but that he had confirmed that this information would have been relevant to his assessment when it was carried out.

In relation to Allegation 1 (f), the Presenting Officer submitted that this was spoken to by Witness 5. She had been clear she had asked the Teacher to complete the report in June 2019. Witness 5 had also told the Panel that this was not done until September 2019. The Presenting Officer submitted that Witness 5 had also spoken to this resulting in her losing earnings.

In relation to Allegation 2, The Presenting Officer submitted that it was a matter for the judgement of the Panel as to whether the Teacher’s Actions in Allegation 1 (a) were lacking in integrity, but submitted that failing to act on child protection issues would constitute a lack of integrity.

The Teacher’s Representative also referred the Panel to Rule 1.7.15.

In relation to Parent A in general, the Teacher’s Representative submitted that her evidence was neither credible nor reliable and that it should not be preferred unless there was other evidence to the same effect corroborating it.

In relation to Allegation 1 (a), the Teacher’s Representative submitted that the question was not whether the incidents occurred but whether they amounted to child protection issues and that if so, the Teacher had failed to act on them.

The Teacher’s Representative accepted that as headteacher the Teacher was required to act on any concerns. He argued that she had done so. – She had taken action including monitoring the classroom and reporting concerns internally. The Teacher’s Representative stated that the Teacher had raised the concerns with Colleague A. He submitted that Witness 2 and Witness 3 were not privy to what had occurred. The Teacher’s Representative argued that in the circumstances the Teacher had done all that was required. He also referred the Panel to Witness 8’s evidence in relation to concerns about Colleague A.

The Teacher’s Representative said the Teacher had also reported the concerns to her line manager Witness 4 on several occasions, and had sought help but received none. The Teacher’s Representative submitted that there was no evidence of anyone at any time suggesting that any of the concerns raised amounted to child protection issues.

In relation to Allegation 1 (b), the Teacher’s Representative submitted that the only evidence to support this particular was from Parent A who he had argued should not be found reliable or credible. Mr Watson submitted that none of the teachers who were involved in the incidents talked of by Parent A had given evidence. The Teacher’s Representative also argued that the Teacher had been signed off sick from 27 September 2019. He submitted that if the Teacher was not at work when an incident happened then she could not have been aware of any incidents or had any obligation to communicate with parents.

In relation to Allegation 1 (c), the Teacher’s Representative submitted that there was no evidence of any delay in any appropriate assistance to Pupil A. He further submitted that the Teacher had not seen anything that she considered required a Child’s Plan to be initiated. He submitted that at the time the Teacher used her judgement. He also submitted that there was no evidence that anyone suggested to the Teacher that a Child’s Plan was required prior to Professional 1’s letter to the Teacher in July 2019.

In relation to Allegation 1 (d), the Teacher’s Representative submitted that there was no evidence of physical or mental abuse to Pupil A. He asked the Panel to note that Professional1 had not been called to give evidence nor had her notes for the relevant period been produced. The Teacher’s Representative also directed the Panel to Professional 1’s letter of July 2019 and submitted there was no basis for a suggestion that something of critical importance had been withheld from her and yet had not been mentioned in her letter. The Teacher’s Representative also submitted that the Teacher had acted entirely appropriately to direct the educational psychologist to her line manager in relation to concerns about Colleague A given the internal investigation that had taken place.

In relation to Allegation 1(f), the Teacher’s Representative submitted that there was simply no evidential basis to support this particular. He submitted there were no copies of any emails submitting the request or evidence of any loss of income.

In relation to Allegation 2, The Teacher’s Representative referred the Panel to the case of Wingate 7 Evans v SRA [2018] EWCA Civ 366 and submitted that none of the particulars set out in allegation 1 (a) satisfied the type of behaviour that could amount to lack of integrity.

The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

Findings of Fact

The Panel gave careful consideration to all of the evidence presented and submissions made by the parties in making its findings of fact on the allegations.

The Panel had in mind that the burden of proof rested on the GTC and that the standard of proof required is that used in civil proceedings, namely the balance of probabilities.

In relation to Findings of Fact, the Panel heard from Witness 1 (Parent A), Witness 2 (Colleague B), Witness 3 (Colleague D), Witness 4, Witness 5 (Colleague C) and Witness 6 for the GTCS. It also heard from Witness 7 (the Teacher) and her witness, Witness 8.

The Panel considered that Parent A used strong and emotional language when giving evidence and expressed her own subjective views and opinions on some matters. The Panel also considered that Parent A’s evidence was at times inconsistent with the evidence of other witnesses.

The Panel considered that Witness 2 gave her evidence in a straightforward manner and was obviously concerned for the children in the class she dealt with. However, the Panel also considered that there was a vagueness in some of the evidence that she gave and also that there were internal inconsistencies and contradictions in her evidence. The Panel also considered that she had not got on well with Colleague A and that there had been a personality clash and that this was reflected in the evidence that she gave to the Panel.

The Panel considered that Witness 3 gave her evidence in an open and straight forward manner and that her oral evidence was consistent with this. The Panel considered that she cared about the children in her care. The Panel took into account that Witness 3 was a temporary Pupil Support Assistant and therefore would not necessarily be aware of all the details of what may have been going on in the school. The Panel also took into account that Witness 3 had said she had kept notes of events that had occurred but that these notes had ‘vanished’. The Panel also considered that Witness 3 expressed her own personal subjective views on matters – for example that Colleague A acted aggressively towards children.

The Panel considered Witness 4 to be very ‘procedural’. It considered that he was not open to reflecting on his own behaviour and actions and the Teacher’s position. The Panel considered that his evidence was of limited use in relation to the issues it had to address.

The Panel considered that Witness 5 was defensive and appeared casual in the manner in which she gave her evidence. The Panel considered that her answers were not particularly detailed and that she came across as being angry at what had occurred. The Panel noted that Witness 5 could not say when the Teacher signed the final report and that her evidence in relation to this matter was internally inconsistent. Overall, the Panel concluded that Witness 5’s evidence was not of particular assistance to the Panel.

The Panel considered that Witness 6 was experienced in his field and gave his professional views in a straightforward manner. The Panel considered that he had expressed very specific views on the issue of the Child’s Plan, but it also became apparent that there was information he was not aware of when he gave his views on the Child’s Plan for Pupil A.

The Panel also heard from the Teacher. The Panel considered that she gave her evidence in an honest and straight forward manner. The Panel found her overall credible and considered that she was not evasive when giving evidence. It considered the Teacher provided a clear picture about the pressures she was under at the time of the allegation. The Panel considered that the Teacher was open about things that she had not got right.

The Panel also heard from Witness 8. The Panel considered that she gave her evidence in an honest and straight forward manner. She detailed her relationship with the Teacher. The Panel considered that the evidence that she gave was believable, she answered clearly and was not evasive.

As the Teacher admitted allegations 1 (e), 1 (g), 3 (including dishonesty) and 4 (including dishonesty), the Panel, in line with Rule 1.7.21, was not required to consider those allegations as part of its Fact Finding.  Therefore, the Panel considered allegations that were denied by the Teacher, namely 1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and 1(d). Further to this, the Panel noted the Presenting Officer’s submissions with regard to insufficiency of evidence with regard to aspects of allegation 1(a)(ii) and 1(c), and in line with Rule 2.8.4, having heard from the parties, accepted the proposed deletions. Thereafter, the Panel went on to consider the disputed allegations as amended.

In reaching its decision the Panel considered how the relevant witness evidence fitted with the non-contentious or agreed facts, contemporaneous documents, the inherent probability or improbability of any account of events and any consistencies and inconsistencies.

The Panel took into account all evidence before it, including the written witness statements, and the witnesses’ subsequent oral evidence and all relevant documentary evidence. It also took into account all the submissions of the Presenting Officer and the Teacher’s Representative.

In considering the allegations that were denied by the Teacher, the Panel noted that it narrated that all the particulars required to have occurred between August 2016 and September 2019 when the Teacher was employed as a Headteacher at Gledfield Primary School.

The Panel further took into account that in relation to all the sub-limbs of allegation 1(a). These were alleged to have occurred between August 2016 and December 2017, and the Teacher was alleged to have ‘failed’ to report ‘multiple child protection concerns’ that had been shared with her by colleagues. The Panel determined that in terms of all the sub-limbs of allegation 1, GTC Scotland was required to prove on the balance of probabilities that ‘child protection concerns’ had been reported to the Teacher by Colleagues and that she was under an obligation to act upon them. In relation to the use of the term ‘act’ the Panel noted that no further specification was provided as to what the nature of any action should have been, merely that there was a failure to act in some way.

1(a)(i) Colleague A shouting at pupils in an aggressive and intimidating manner and causing them distress and humiliation

The Panel noted the evidence of  Witness 3 in her witness statement and oral evidence that Colleague A had shouted at pupils in an aggressive and intimidating manner causing the pupils distress and humiliation. Witness 3 had told the Panel specific examples of when she had witnessed this occurring. This was consistent with her letter from Witness 3 to the Teacher dated 8 February 2017. The Panel also noted evidence of Witness 2 in her witness statement and oral evidence that Colleague A had shouted at children in this manner causing the pupils distress and humiliation. Again, this was consistent with her letters to the Teacher dated 9 January 2017 and 10 February 2017. The evidence of Witness 2 and Witness 3 was that these incidents occurred during the relevant chronological period. The was no information before the Panel to undermine this evidence or to suggest it was unreliable. The Panel determined that during the relevant period, Colleague A had shouted at pupils in an aggressive and intimidating manner causing the pupils distress and humiliation.

The Panel considered all the evidence put before it by the GTCS and concluded that no witness had stated that these actions alone amounted to a ‘child protection issue.’ For the reasons set out above, the Panel determined that the GTCS required to prove this for this particular to be found proved. The Panel was not satisfied that the GTCS had, in relation to the specific actions set out in this particularisation, proved on the balance of probabilities, that these constituted ‘child protection issues’.

The Panel also took into account the Teacher’s evidence that she had raised these issues with Colleague A. There were no witnesses before the Panel who could speak to what occurred between the Teacher and Colleague A other than the Teacher. The Panel therefore considered that the Teacher had such a conversation. Again, as set out above, the GTCS had not specified or particularised what actions should have been taken. The Panel therefore determined that the Teacher had taken action.

For these reasons, the Panel found Allegation 1 (a)(i) not proved.

1(a)(ii) Colleague A bullying and intimidating a pupil by refusing to allow him out on break and lunch.

The Panel took into account the evidence of Witness 2 in her witness statement, her oral evidence and her letters to the Teacher dated 9 January 2017 and 10 February 2017. Witness 2 had told the Panel that Colleague A had refused to allow a pupil out on break and lunch. The Panel considered that Witness 2’s evidence had been consistent. There was no information before the Panel to undermine this evidence or to suggest it was unreliable. The Panel determined that during the relevant period, Colleague A had refused to allow a pupil out on break and lunch.

The Panel considered that in her evidence Witness 2 stated that the behaviour was inappropriate but had not stated that Colleague A had been ‘bullying or intimidating’. There was no other evidence before the Panel that Colleague A’s refusal to allow a pupil out on break or lunch was bullying and intimidating. The Panel was not satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, GTC Scotland had proved that Colleague A’s behaviour had been bullying or intimidating.

Further, the Panel considered all the evidence put before it by the GTC Scotland and concluded that no witness had stated that these actions alone amounted to a ‘child protection issue.’ For the reasons set out above, the Panel determined that GTC Scotland required to prove this for this particular to be found proved. The Panel was not satisfied that the GTCS had, in relation to the specific actions set out in this particularisation, proved on the balance of probabilities, that these constituted ‘child protection issues’.

The Panel also took into account the Teacher’s evidence that she had raised these issues with Colleague A. There were no witnesses before the Panel who could speak to what occurred between the Teacher and Colleague A other than the Teacher. The Panel therefore considered that the Teacher had such a conversation. Again, as set out above, the GTCS had not specified or particularised what actions should have been taken. The Panel therefore determined that the Teacher had taken action.

For these reasons, the Panel found Allegation 1 (a)(ii) not proved.

1(a)(iii) Colleague A regularly preventing pupils going out on break and deliberately making them late for lunch or gym;

The Panel noted that this particular of the allegation not only alleged that Colleague A prevented pupils from going out on breaks, but also that Colleague A did this deliberately to make the pupils late for lunch or gym.

The Panel noted the evidence of Witness 3 in her witness statement and oral evidence and her letter from Witness 3 to the Teacher dated 8 February 2017. The Panel took into account that Witness 3 stated in her evidence that Colleague A regularly prevented pupils from going on a break. The Panel considered that Witness 3’s evidence had been consistent. There was no information before the Panel to undermine this evidence or to suggest it was unreliable. The Panel determined that during the relevant period, Colleague A had regularly prevented pupils from going on a break.

However, the Panel determined that there was no evidence before it that Colleague A had done this deliberately to make pupils late for lunch or gym. The Panel considered that, on the balance of probabilities, GCT Scotland had failed to prove that Colleague A had deliberately made pupils late for lunch or gym.

Further, the Panel considered all the evidence put before it by the GTC Scotland and concluded that no witness had stated that these actions alone amounted to a ‘child protection issue.’ For the reasons set out above, the Panel determined that GTC Scotland required to prove this for this particular to be found proved. The Panel was not satisfied that the GTC Scotland had, in relation to the specific actions set out in this particularisation, proved on the balance of probabilities, that these constituted ‘child protection issues’.

The Panel also took into account the Teacher’s evidence that she had raised these issues with Colleague A. There were no witnesses before the Panel who could speak to what occurred between the Teacher and Colleague A other than the Teacher. The Panel therefore considered that the Teacher had such a conversation. Again, as set out above, the GTC Scotland had not specified or particularised what actions should have been taken. The Panel therefore determined that the Teacher had taken action.

For these reasons, the Panel found Allegation 1 (a) (iii) not proved.

1(a)(iv) Colleague A grabbing a boy by his arm;

The Panel took into account that in her witness statement and oral evidence Witness 2 referred to Colleague A grabbing a boy by his arm. However, the Panel also took into account that no mention of this event was made by Witness 2 in her letters to the Teacher dated 9 January 2017 and 10 February 2017

The Panel noted that Witness 2’s first witness statement was dated 2020 and her supplementary statement August 2020.

For the reasons set out above, the Panel determined that for this allegation to be found proved,  GTC Scotland had to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the Teacher failed to act during the period between August 2016 and December 2017. The Panel determined that to have an obligation to take any action the Teacher had to be aware of a concern. There was no evidence before the Panel that the Teacher had been made aware of any concerns relating to Colleague A grabbing a boy by the arm during this chronological period. The Panel therefore concluded that the GTCS had failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Teacher had failed to take action. The Panel also took into account the Teacher’s evidence that she was not aware of such a concern and if she had been aware would have taken action.

For these reasons, the Panel found Allegation 1(a)(iv) not proved.

1(b) Fail to inform parents regarding incidents of physical abuse allegedly committed by Pupil B against their children.

The Panel took into account the witness statement and oral evidence of Parent A and her letter of complaint. The Panel noted that Parent A stated in her complaint that Pupil A had been assaulted by another pupil whilst at school at the start of 2019 -20, but failed to specify the exact dates on which she alleged that the assaults occurred.

The Panel also took into account the witness statement and oral evidence of Witness 5. Witness 5 also told the Panel that she had seen Pupil B assault other pupils. However, the Panel considered that she was vague in her evidence on this matter and failed to provide any specific dates on which the alleged assaults occurred other than stating that Pupil B started at the school in April 2019.

The Panel also took into account the Teacher’s evidence that she had been on sick leave from her post from 18 September 2017 to 1 November 2017 and then from 22 November to January 2019. There was nothing before the Panel to contradict the Teacher’s evidence on this matter.

The Panel also took into account that the stem of Particular 1 of the Allegation specified that all the failures alleged occurred between August 2016 and September 2019.

The Panel determined that there was insufficient clearly supported evidence before it to allow it to reach a conclusion, on the balance of probabilities when the assaults referred to by Parent A and Witness 5 took place.

The Panel further concluded that it could not therefore reach a conclusion, on the balance of probabilities, if any of these alleged assaults took place during the chronological period required by this particular.

Further, the Panel also concluded that even if incidents of physical abuse were carried out by Pupil B against other pupils during this period there was insufficient clearly supported evidence before it to allow it to reach a conclusion, on the balance of probabilities, that they did not occur during the period when the Teacher was absent from her post. The panel had no evidence before it to show that if such incidents had occurred when the Teacher was absent how they would have come to her attention and therefore why she would have been under an obligation to inform parents.

For all these reasons, the Panel concluded that the GTCS had failed, on the balance of probabilities to prove that during the relevant period, the Teacher failed to inform parents regarding incidents of physical abuse allegedly committed by Pupil B against their children.

The Panel therefore found Allegation 1(b) not proved.

1(c) Fail to complete a Child’s Plan in respect of Pupil A in a timeous manner, thus unnecessarily delaying the input of appropriate assistance for Pupil A.

The Panel considered that in order for this particular to be found proved the GTCS had to prove on the balance of probabilities that, during the relevant period referred to above, there was an obligation on the Teacher to complete a Child’s Plan in respect of Pupil A and if such an obligation existed, that such action was not taken ‘timeously’.

The Panel took into account the witness statements and oral evidence of Witness 6 in relation to the process by which the creation of a Child’s Plan should take place. The Panel considered that they both spoke of a ‘general’ approach to when a Child’s Plan should be put in place and based their views on their own experience. The Panel also noted that Witness 6 stated on a number of occasions that he had not reviewed Pupil A’s full file and in particular the involvement of his colleague Professional 1 prior to his involvement. The Panel considered, given his lack of knowledge of what occurred prior to his involvement, that the views he expressed in relation to when a Child’s Plan should have been completed for Child A could be given little weight. The Panel determined that the exact criteria for when a Child’s Plan required to be instituted and what triggered this appeared to be very nebulous and case specific.

The Panel took into account the meeting between the Teacher and Parent A on 18 December 2017. It considered that there was no mention in these notes of the need for a Child’s Plan being discussed in the ‘Concerns Raised’ section. Further, the Panel noted that in the ‘Action’ section, it was noted that the Family GP was to refer Child A to a Primary Mental Health Worker and a meeting with an Educational Psychologist was to be arranged. The Panel considered that at this point no ‘multi-agency’ involvement yet existed.

A ’Solution Focussed Meeting’ then took place on 11 January 2018. The Panel again considered that there was no mention in these notes of the need for a Child’s Plan being discussed. The Panel also noted that under the ‘Actions’ section it was noted that the actions ongoing were the actions identified at the meeting of 18 December 2018. The Panel again considered at this point no ‘multi-agency’ involvement existed. There was a further “Solution Focused Meeting’ on 19 May 2019 when a ‘Staged Approach’ was adopted. There was then a review meeting on 1 July 2019 which the educational psychologist could not attend.

There was a meeting on 22 July 2019 at which a number of actions were recommended by the Primary Mental Health Worker, but no mention was made of the necessity of a Child’s Plan. On 9 August 2019, the Education Psychologist emailed the Teacher requesting a Child’s Plan Meeting. The Teacher did not receive this email until her return to school after the summer holidays on 13 August 2019.

In her letter to the teacher dated 31 July 2019, Professional 1 stated that, ‘I would also advise that for the next review meeting that you formulate a Child’s Plan.’ The Teacher did not receive Professional 1’s letter until her return to school after the summer holidays and Prior to a Child’s Plan being put in place. 

The Educational Psychologist then left the post and there was a gap before another took over. Due to this and other logistical difficulties, no meeting could be arranged prior to the Teacher going off sick in September 2019.

The Panel considered that in order to find this allegation proved, it required to be satisfied that a Child’s Plan had not been completed timeously. The Panel concluded that although Professional 1’s letter of 31 July 2019 and the email from the Educational Psychologist of 9 August 2019 raised the question of a Child’s Plan, the Teacher was not aware of the contents of the letter or email until her return from the school holidays. The Panel determined this was the point at which the obligation to initiate steps to complete a Child’s Plan arose. Prior to a Child’s Plan being completed there required to be a Child’s Plan meeting. Due to difficulties out of the control of the Teacher, this meeting could not be arranged before the Teacher took sick leave.

The Panel determined that in these circumstances, there was no failure to complete a Child’s Plan timeously.

Allegation 1(c) is therefore found not proved.

1(d) Fail to share details of physical and mental abuse suffered by Pupil A with appropriate mental health professionals who were assessing Pupil A.

The Panel considered that to find this particular proved, it required to be satisfied that the Teacher was aware of details of physical or mental abuse suffered by Pupil A and failed to share this information.

The Panel noted that the particular didn’t specify who it alleged abused Pupil A.

The Panel took into account that the Teacher accepted the allegations that were made against Colleague A may have been relevant to the discussions between Pupil A and the mental health practitioners who were working with her. However, the Panel also took into account the Teacher’s evidence that she had considered these allegations to be confidential and that she had therefore emailed the educational psychologist and asked her to contact the Teacher’s line manager who had been involved in the investigation of Colleague A. The Teacher considered that she was not the appropriate person to decide what should or should not be divulged and she also had limited knowledge of what had arisen during the investigation having only been made aware of its outcome. The Teacher said she had also spoken directly to her line manager regarding this and also thought she may have spoken to Professional 1 about her contacting the line manager.

The Panel considered that it had no evidence before it from any other witnesses specifically about Pupil A being subjected to physical or mental abuse from any other individual. The evidence from Witness 2, Witness 3 and Witness 5 talked generally about concerns they had for pupils but did not specifically identify any particular pupil.

The Panel heard evidence from Parent A that she had had conversations with Professional 1. However, Professional 1 did not give evidence and her file notes were not before the Panel. Further, Witness 6 told the Panel that he had not read Professional 1’s file notes, nor had he had any conversation with her about what may have occurred during the period relevant to the particular. There was therefore no evidence before the Panel of any conversations that Professional 1 may have had with the Teacher or what issues may have been raised during them. The Panel also considered that Witness 2, Witness 3 and Witness 5 had no knowledge of any communication the Teacher may have had with Professional 1 or others as they had not been privy to such information. The evidence that Witness 2, Witness 3 and Witness 5 gave was restricted to their not receiving any feedback from the Teacher when they raised concerns.

The Panel therefore considered that the only abuse that the Teacher was specifically aware of was that involving Colleague A which had been the subject of the complaint and investigation.

The Panel considered that such information could have been confidential and that the Teacher had taken what steps she could to inform the relevant mental health professionals of these matters by referring them to her line manager and therefore had not failed to share details.

Allegation 1(d) is therefore found not proved.

1(f) In or around June 2019 fail to ensure that Colleague B’s final report for GTC Scotland was signed timeously, thus resulting in a loss of earnings for Colleague B.

The Panel considered that for this particular to be found proved, the GTCS had to show not only that there had been a failure to ensure the report was signed timeously, but also that this resulted in financial loss. A failure to prove either part of the particular would result in the whole particular being not proved.

The Panel took into account the evidence of Witness 5. The Panel noted that when questioned in detail Witness 5 had told the Panel that she had submitted the final report to the GTCS online. She could not speak to the process that then took place or in particular when the Teacher became aware that the report required to be signed.

There was no other evidence before the Panel in relation to the process followed by the GTCS once it had received the report or any documentation from the GTCS confirming when the Teacher had been advised of the existence of the report and that she had to sign it.

The Panel considered it was therefore unable, on the balance of probabilities, to make any finding regarding when the Teacher was aware that the report required to be signed. The Panel further concluded therefore that it was not possible for it to consider whether the report had been signed timeously or not.

Similarly, there was no evidence before the Panel, either from Witness 5 or in the form of documentary vouching to prove that, on the balance of probabilities, Witness 5 had suffered any form of financial loss.

Allegation 1(f) is therefore found not proved.

2. The Teacher’s actions at allegation 1(a) were lacking in integrity.

Allegation 1 (a) having been found not proved, allegation 2, by necessity, was also not proved.

Findings on Fitness to Teach

Given that the Panel found that  1(e), 1(g), 3 and 4 were proved by admission, the Panel invited the parties to lead evidence and make submissions in relation to the Teacher’s fitness to teach.

The Panel heard further evidence from a witness for the Teacher, Witness 9.

Witness 9

Witness 9 took the oath and was referred to her written witness statement. She confirmed that she had signed the statement and that the contents of the statement were accurate.

Witness 9 told the Panel that she became a fully registered teacher in 2003. She explained that prior to this she had been a marine biologist, research scientist and countryside ranger. She set out her academic qualifications. She told the Panel that she was a class teacher at Rogart Primary School (Rogart) where the Teacher was also employed.

Witness 9 told the Panel that she had known the Teacher since August 2009 when the Teacher had been the Headteacher at Witness 9’s daughter’s school. She said she found the Teacher approachable, professional and caring towards her daughter.

Witness 9 told the Panel that the Teacher had worked at Rogart since August 2020 when the Teacher started as a class teacher to P5-7 and Witness 9 was a class teacher to P1-P4. Witness 9 said she found the Teacher to be very professional and easy to work with. Witness 9 said the Teacher had a warm manner and the children in her class were relaxed and happy. She said the Teacher also had children with additional support needs in her class. Witness 9 said that fellow staff members and staff members were happy and confident in the Teacher’s abilities. Witness 9 told the Panel that at a recent Child’s Plan meeting a parent had said the Teacher had ‘turned her son’s life around.’

Witness 9 said she worked closely with the Teacher. She said it was a small school and she and the Teacher worked closely together and discussed children and the best approaches to take with them. Witness 9 said she and the Teacher did lunches together and supervised play.

Witness 9 said that a new headteacher had recently been appointed at Rogart. She said that during the Teacher’s time at Rogart there had been two different headteachers and the Teacher had got on well with both of them.

Witness 9 said the Teacher was aware of what was going on in the school and supportive of all staff members.  She said that they had an ‘open door policy’ at the school and shared space such as dining, library and outdoor space. She said she thought the Teacher was an excellent teacher, who was respectful and inclusive.

Witness 9 said that she and the Teacher have been tasked with aspects of the school improvement plan and that the Teacher was committed to researching the latest guidance and best practice. She said the Teacher also worked well with support staff some of whom had recurring health issues and that she has shown compassion to these individuals.

Witness 9 said that in the time she had known the Teacher she had never had any reason to question her integrity in any way and had only ever heard positive comments about the Teacher from fellow teachers and headteachers.

Witness 9 said she was currently acting as a mentor to the Teacher. She said this started 2 to 3 years ago. Witness 9 explained that they were meeting to discuss things anyway and thought it would be beneficial to formalise this. Witness 9 explained that she and the Teacher initially met once a week in their management time but that this time had been removed so they now met formally once a fortnight or monthly. Witness 9 stressed she and the Teacher checked in with each other every day. She said they discussed CoPaC and how it related to their classroom practice and the school improvement plan. Witness 9 explained that they discussed professional development and how they can progress as teachers. Witness 9 also said that as teachers their own well-being was important and that they strive to create a school that fosters self-confidence and compassion for all. Witness 9 explained that the mentoring had become more focused on child protection and the well-being of the children. Witness 9 said the Teacher’s understanding of child protection had always been very good and that Witness 9 had not had to train her in this. Witness 9 referred the Panel to copies of notes of mentoring meetings between her and the Teacher.

Witness 9 said she and the teacher looked [redacted]. She said they ensured they did not become isolated and had ample time to discuss any issues that arose.

Witness 9 said that the Teacher had been very open about the allegations she had faced and those that she had admitted. She said she admired her for speaking about this. Witness 9 said she felt that the Teacher was a person of the highest integrity and honesty. Witness 9 said in relation to the dishonesty admitted by the Teacher, she had spoken about the very stressful circumstances that existed at that time and this led to decisions that the Teacher made quickly and were not pre-meditated.

Witness 9 said she had no concerns regarding the Teacher’s child protection training or her reflections.

In cross examination, Witness 9 confirmed that she and the Teacher intended to keep up with the mentoring meetings after the conclusion of these GTCS proceedings.

Submissions on Fitness to Teach

The Presenting Officer referred the Panel to the Public Services Reform (General Teaching Council for Scotland) Order 2011 and the GTCS Indicative Outcomes Guidance. He submitted that the Panel should give careful consideration to all of the evidence presented and submissions made by the parties in relation to the Teacher’s fitness to teach.  The Panel should address the relevant considerations in relation to fitness to teach, as outlined in the GTCS Indicative Outcomes Guidance. The Presenting Officer set out the approach he suggested the Panel should take to impairment and fitness to teach.

The Presenting Officer referred the Panel to the cases of Roylance v GMC [2001] 1 AC 311 in relation to misconduct and submitted that the allegations admitted and found proved were in breach of Parts 1.3, 1.4 and 2.4 of CoPac.

The Presenting Officer further submitted that if the Panel agreed that the Teacher had committed misconduct it should consider whether the shortfalls identified were remediable, had been remedied and were unlikely to be repeated.

He submitted that the allegations admitted and found proved were very serious involving two allegations of dishonesty. One related to ensuring colleagues carried out child protection training and the other to ensuring that observations required for GTCS registration were completed. The Presenting Officer submitted this raised concerns about the protection of children and the public and constituted a breach of fundamental tenets of the profession and was difficult to remediate.

In relation to dishonesty, The Presenting Officer referred the Panel to the cases of PSA v GMC & Igwillo [2016] EWHC 524 (Admin), PSAv Uppal [2015] EWHC 1304 (Admin) and Atkinson v GMC [2009] EWHC 3636 (Admin). He accepted that the Teacher had fully engaged with this process and had no prior history of misconduct. He further accepted that she had made early admissions to the allegations that the Panel had to consider at this stage; had a number of testimonials and had undertaken CPD and training. The Presenting Officer submitted that whilst the Teacher was now in a different role to that of a headteacher, limited weight should be attached to this as a protective factor as she could change her mind as to what roles she might undertake in the future.

He referred the Panel to the evidence of Witness 9 and suggested it might be helpful to the Panel. The Presenting Officer submitted there remained a risk of repetition if there was no finding of current impairment if the Teacher found herself in similar stressful situations.

The Presenting Officer also submitted that a finding of current impairment or that the Teacher is unfit to teach was necessary to maintain confidence in the GTCS as a regulator and in the wider public interest.

 The Teacher’s Representative submitted that the Teacher acknowledged the seriousness of her action and that whilst she might have been impaired at the time the incidents occurred, she has remedied her behaviour, there was no risk of repetition and she was not currently impaired. He further submitted that if the Panel was not with him on this, it should not find that the Teacher was unfit to teach.

The Teacher’s Representative also referred the Panel to the legal framework he suggested it should apply and to the cases of Cheatle v GMC (2009) EWHC 645 (Admin), Meadow v GMC [2007]QB 463 and Zygmunt v GMC (2008) EWHC 2643.

The Teacher’s Representative submitted that the Teacher’s conduct had to be viewed in the context of the circumstances existing at the time. In particular, the Teacher needed to cover lessons due to short staffing, was dividing her time between two schools, that clerical assistants had resigned and that there was a loss of PSA time. He pointed out that the Teacher had given evidence that she was even cleaning out toilets.

The Teacher’s Representative submitted that the teacher had sought help from her manager, but there had been none forthcoming. He submitted she was left isolated and unsupported and [redacted] and overwhelmed.

The Teacher’s Representative submitted that the conduct was remediable. He submitted that looking at the context of circumstances at the time this was not a normal set of circumstances and that the Teacher was exposed and vulnerable. He said she had made ‘poor’ decisions. He referred the Panel to the many testimonials for the Teacher’s honesty and said looking at the context in which events occurred the conduct was remediable.

The Teacher’s Representative then referred the Panel to the Teacher’s reflections, the training she had undertaken, the mentoring relationship that was now in place and the evidence of her colleagues. He submitted that in light of these factors, the Panel could be satisfied that the Teacher had remediated.

The Teacher’s Representative said in all these circumstances there was no risk of repetition. He further submitted that a reasonably informed member of the public looking at all these circumstances would not consider that the reputation of the GTCS as a regulator would be undermined by a finding of no impairment.

The Teacher’s Representative made a secondary submission that if the Panel was not with him on the Teacher not being currently impaired it should not find that she was unfit to teach.

The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

The Panel first considered whether the Teacher’s conduct fell short of the expected professional standards. It noted that the Presenting Officer invited the Panel that the allegations found proved were in breach of 1.3, 1.4 and 2.4 of the CoPaC.  The Panel determined that the conduct was in breach of standards 1.3 and 1.4 of CoPac. The Panel did not consider that standard 2.4 was engaged in this case.

The Panel considered that the allegations were serious involving dishonesty. The Panel took into account the context existing at the time of the misconduct. It considered that the Teacher was under [redacted] due to low teaching staffing, was covering lessons herself whilst dividing her time between two sites, had lost clerical assistants and PSA time. The Panel accepted the Teacher’s evidence that she was even cleaning toilets herself. The Teacher had reached out for help from her line manager, but this had not been forthcoming. The Panel considered that during this period the Teacher had become overwhelmed. The Panel in considering the Teacher’s dishonest conduct in this context, considered that the dishonesty was not at the most serious end of the scale of dishonesty and concluded that in these circumstances it was remediable.

The Panel went on to consider whether the shortfalls identified were remediable. It took into account that the Teacher had made early admissions to the relevant particulars of the allegation and accepted responsibility for her actions.

The Panel also took into account the context existing at the time of the misconduct as set out above.

The Panel noted that the events occurred over four years ago, and noted the Teacher’s reflections on what had occurred and the steps she had taken to ensure there would be no reoccurrence including training and CPD.  The Panel considered the evidence of her colleagues and various positive testimonials produced on her behalf. The Panel also noted that the Teacher now has a mentoring relationship in place.

The Panel determined that the Teacher had demonstrated insight into her conduct and addressed the issues that had caused her to act as she did. The Panel considered that the Teacher has remedied the shortfalls identified by her actions outlined above. The Panel was satisfied that if similar circumstances arose, the Teacher would recognise [redacted], and take appropriate steps including discussion with her mentor and that it was very unlikely that there would be any reoccurrence of the shortfalls identified.

The Panel further decided that public confidence in the profession and the GTC Scotland would be satisfied by the rigorous regulatory process that has been undertaken resulting in the Teacher accepting her shortfalls and remediating them.

Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Panel determined that the shortfalls identified are remediable, have been remedied and that reoccurrence is not likely. Further to this, the Panel determined that a finding of current impairment was not required either on the grounds of public protection or public interest. Therefore, the Panel determined that the Teacher is not currently impaired.